Madras High Court
M.Vijaya Baskar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 March, 2013
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.03.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. Nos.2795 of 2013, 650 of 2013, 3467 of 2013, 3213 of 2013, 1740 of 2013, 1278 of 2013, 3616 of 2013, 2837 of 2013, 3691 of 2013, 3688 of 2013 and 4278 of 2013, 2836 of 2013, 3717 of 2013, 24279 of 2012 and 24351 of 2012 M.Vijaya Baskar .. Petitioner in W.P.2795/2013 -vs- 1. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Madras .. Respondents in W.P.2795/2013 Prayer in W.P.2795/2013: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.En.13100/2012/A3 dated 08.01.2013 and to quash the same as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Constable Grade-II. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari (W.Ps.2795&3616/13) Mr.R.Sankarasubbu (W.Ps.650&1278/13) Mr.G.Ethirajulu (W.P.No.3467/13) Mr.V.Sairam (W.P.No.1740/13) Mr.J.Senthilkumar (W.P.No.3717/13) Mr.A.Arasu Ganesan (W.P.No.3691/13) Mr.S.Sivakumar (W.Ps.24279&24351/12) Mr.D.Lingeswaran (W.Ps.2836&2837/13) Mr.G.Prabhakar (W.Ps.No.3688&4278/13) Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar (W.P.323/13) For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** C O M M O N O R D E R
This judgement shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz.,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sl.No. W.P.No. Name of Petitioner
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2795 of 2013 M.Vijaya Baskar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. 650 of 2013 Tamilazhagan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. 3467 of 2013 J.Senthil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4. 3213 of 2013 M.Mageswaran
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5. 1740 of 2013 D.Chitharanjan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6. 1278 of 2013 Annamalai
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. 3616 of 2013 L.K.Starnesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8. 2836 of 2013 A.Manikandan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9. 2837 of 2013 R.Nithyanandham
-----------------------------------------------------------------
10. 3691 of 2013 Dhanakoteeswaran
-----------------------------------------------------------------
11. 24279 of 2012 Saikumar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
12. 24351 of 2012 S.Manikandan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
13. 3688 of 2013 V.Bharathan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4278 of 2013 Velu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
15. 3717 of 2013 Sathishkumar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
as the common question of law is raised in all these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.2795 of 2013.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders of the respondents in rejecting the claim of petitioners for appointment as Grade-II Police Constables inspite of their selection and having been found medically fit.
3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) issued recruitment notification TNUSRB Police Recruitment 2012 on 22.03.2012 for enrollment of Police Constable Grade-II, Jail Warden and Fireman. The advertisement was issued for 13320 posts, out of which 12,152 post were of Police Constable, 377 posts of Warden, 791 posts of Fireman, including 56 Backlog posts. The last date for submission of application forms was on or before 23.04.2012. The date for written examination was fixed on 24.06.2012.
4. The minimum eligibility qualification prescribed under the notification was 10th class pass, age between 18 and 24 years as on 01.07.2012. For candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, there was age relaxation till 29.
5. The petitioner, after being successful in the physical fitness test was allowed to take up examination on 24.06.2012 and 22.08.2012. The petitioner was awarded 57 marks out of 80 marks in the written test and was 14 out of 15 in the physical test. The petitioner therefore qualified to be appointed as Constable Grade-II.
6. After the petitioner had undergone medical examination, local Police were called upon by the concerned department to verify the antecedents of petitioner for character verification. It is submitted, that the local Inspector certified that there were no adverse remarks against the character of petitioner, but it was reported, that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner in Crime No.P.S.429 of 2011 with the Inspector of Police, Morappur, but was closed as mistake of fact against the petitioner.
7. The reasons for disqualification of petitioners In each of the writ petition are as under:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl.No. W.P.No. Name of Petitioner Crime No. & Offence Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2795 of 2013 M.Vijaya Baskar P.S.429 of 2011 for Closed as offence under Secs.147, Mistake of Fact 294(b), 323, 324 and on 12.12.12 by 506(ii) IPC the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pappirettiatti, Harur District.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 650 of 2013 Tamilazhagan Cr.No.1627 of 2009 Acquitted on (C.C.No.378 of 2009) Benefit of for offence under Doubt on Secs.147, 148, 323 22.10.2010 by and 324 IPC the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 3467 of 2013 J.Senthil Cr.No.245 of 2004 Acquitted (C.C.No.119 of 2005) on Benefit for offence under of Doubt Secs.147, 148, 323, 325, on 20.10.2010 326 and 294-A IPC. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 3213 of 2013 M.Mageswaran Cr.No.396 of 2007 Acquitted (STC No.482 of 2008) on Benefit for offence under of Doubt on Secs.4(1)(i) and 30.09.2009 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Valaja.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 1740 of 2013 D.Chitharanjan Cr.No.795 of 2005 Acquitted on (C.C.No.251 of 2007) Benefit of for offence under Doubt on Secs.294(b), 323 and 08.10.2010 506(i) IPC. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 1278 of 2013 Annamalai Cr.No.332 of 2011 Acquitted on (C.C.No.123 of 2011) Benefit of for offence under Doubt on Sec. 323 IPC. 28.12.2012 by the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Uthankarai.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 3616 of 2013 L.K.Starnesh Cr.No.141 of 2009 Acquitted on (C.C.No.170 of 2009) on Benefit for offence under of Doubt on Secs. 324 and 23.08.2010 506(ii) IPC. by the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Papiretti Patti.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 2836 of 2013 A.Manikandan Cr.No.187 of 2012 Admitted (STC No.308 of 2012) the guilt for offence under Secs. and paid 279, 337 and a fine of 338 IPC @147, 294(b), Rs.2250/-
323 & 307 IPC. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 2837 of 2013 R.Nithyanandham Cr.No.349 of 2009 Acquitted (S.C.No.8 of 2010) on Benefit for offence under Secs. of Doubt 147, 294(b), 323 IPC r/w on 19.09.2011 Sec.3(1)(X), 3(2)(v) of by the SC & ST Act r/w 149 IPC. learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 3691 of 2013 Dhanakoteeswaran Cr.No.145 of 2010 for Closed as offence under Secs.147, Mistake of 148, 323, 324 and Fact on 506(ii) IPC r/w Sec.3 28.02.2011 of PPD Act. by filing Referred Charge Sheet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 24279 of 2012 Saikumar Cr.No.95 of 2010 for FIR was offence under Secs.147, quashed by 148, 294(b), 324 and this Court 427 IPC. vide order dated 02.03.2011 in Crl.O.P.3306 of 2011.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 24351 of 2012 S.Manikandan Cr.No.241 of 2008 for Final Report offence under Sec.174 filed Cr.P.C. @ 306 IPC. by the Investigating Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Salem, stating as "Further Action Dropped"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 3688 of 2013 V.Bharathan Cr.No.145 of 2010 for Closed as offence under Secs.147, Mistake of 148, 323, 324 and Fact on 506 (ii) IPC r/w 02.03.2011 Sec.3 of PPD Act. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Harur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 4278 of 2013 Velu Cr.No.145 of 2010 for Closed as offence under Secs.147, Mistake of 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) Fact on IPC r/w Sec.3 of PPD Act. 02.03.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Harur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 3717 of 2013 Sathishkumar Crime No.625 of 2010 Paid fine (STC No.3612 of 2010) of 100/-
for offence under before the Sec.160 IPC learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. It is submitted, that though the petitioner was fully eligible for appointment as Constable Grade-II, the impugned order was passed withholding the selection, on the ground, that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, though charges against petitioner were dropped and the petitioner had submitted a copy of the judgment to the respondents.
9. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, on the ground, that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of appointment under the State, on frivolous and non-existing grounds. It is submitted, that the impugned order offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the reason for disqualification is non existence, as the petitioner had disclosed that criminal charge against the petitioner was dropped as "Mistake of Fact".
10. It is submitted, that the impugned order is against the law as laid down by this Court in D.Mahadevan vs. Director General of Police, Chennai, 2008 (4) MLJ 88, holding therein a person involved in a criminal case cannot be treated to be involved in the criminal case, if honourably acquitted.
11. All these writ petitions are opposed by the State primarily on the ground, that the petitioners were not found fit for appointment as Constable Grade-II, as they were involved in criminal cases before the Police verification. It was the submission of learned counsel for the State, that vide G.O.Ms.No.1410 dated 17.10.2008, the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services were amended, and person involved in a criminal case before Police verification was made ineligible for appointment.
12. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, referred to the G.O.Ms.No.1410, to contend, that a person, acquitted or discharged by giving benefit of doubt or on the complainant turning hostile is to be treated as a person involved in a criminal case, and only those persons involved in criminal cases at the time of Police verification, whose cases are yet to be disposed of, which subsequently end in honourable acquittal are treated as "Mistake of Fact" can only be treated as not involved in a criminal case and can claim righty to appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.
13. It is also the stand of the State, that the petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as Rule 14 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules stipulate, that the character and antecedents of the candidates are required to be such, which qualify him for service. The Rule further provides, that a person acquitted or discharged by giving benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant had turned hostile, are to be treated as person involved in a criminal case.
14. It was the contention of learned counsel for the State, that Rule 14 (b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules was held not to be ultra vires the constitution, therefore rejection of petitioners for appointment in view of their involvement in criminal cases and for suppression of information of their involvement in criminal case is perfectly valid and justified, which does not call for any interference.
15. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38289 of 2005 (Manikandan vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board) and other connected cases, decided on 28.02.2008, to contend, that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14 (b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rules, a person acquitted by benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State, and the order of rejection cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified. Furthermore, the failure of a person to disclose in the application form either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended, that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law, as the cases of all petitioners do not fall under Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rules, and there was no material with the respondents to hold, that the petitioners' character and antecedents were such as to disqualify them from services, the only material with the respondents is the criminal cases, which ended in acquittal much before the process of selection started and in some of the cases, petitioners were released on "Mistake of Fact.
17. It was only in two cases, where punishment of fine was imposed. Such minor punishment also cannot be a bar for life to get public appointment.
18. That Rule 14 (b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rules also cannot apply to the persons, who stood acquitted of the charges, even prior to the selection process started, as in view of the acquittal, it cannot be said, that a person is involved in a criminal case prior to Police verification, so as to bar him for public appointment for ever.
19. It was also vehemently contended, that the reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court referred to above is misconceived, as the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench, is not only contrary to the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the question whether person can be disqualified for appointment, stands referred to the larger Bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. And others, 2012 (5) Supreme 215,
20. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law, as these go contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 MLJ 1006 (SC), wherein the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
"4. It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the respondent because he and some of his family members were involved in a criminal case being FIR 362 under Section 325/34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on 18.01.1998 and the respondent and his family members were acquitted on 18.01.1998.
5. In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filing up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case.
6. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted.
7. On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form.
8. The respondent submitted his reply on 17.08.2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his candidature. The respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been acquitted. Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was rightly cancelled.
We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter.
10. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life.
The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
11. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :-
"I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed."
(Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B.114)
12. In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.
13. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."
21. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2011 (6) Supreme 23, wherein the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
8. In the facts of the present case, we find that though Criminal Case No.275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant had been acquitted by order dated 18.07.2002 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. On a reading of the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate would show that the sole witness examined before the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the Court that on 02.12.2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) relied on by the respondents, a criminal case had been registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 IPC and was pending against the respondent in that case and the respondent had suppressed this material in the attestation form. The respondent, however, contended that the criminal case was subsequently withdrawn and the offences in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved were also not of serious nature. On these facts, this Court held that the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya and he could not be suitable for appointment as the character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age and if the authorities had dismissed him from service for suppressing material information in the attestation form, the decision of the authorities could not be interfered with by the High Court. The facts of the case in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore materially different from the facts of the present case and the decision does not squarely cover the case of the appellant as has been held by the High Court.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs."
22. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2068 of 2013 (K.Sathyaseelan vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and another), decided on 26.02.2013, laying down as under:
"12. In view of the above, since the respondents have not applied their mind on the criminal case which had already come to an end even before the recruitment process was started, the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police cannot be justified and hence it has to be set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to grant an appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed."
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1231 of 2009 (K.Satyanarayanan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another), decided on 17.09.2009, wherein this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the appellant against the vacancy available, when there was acquittal on mistake of fact, rather than directing him to compete for the future vacancies.
24. The question, whether a person, who was acquitted of criminal charges prior to commencement of the selection process, was considered by this Court in W.P.No.2100 of 2008 (Navaneethakrishnan vs. The Secretary to Government and another), decided on 12.02.2013 and this Court was pleased to lay down, that when a person is acquitted of criminal charges prior to the selection process had commenced, it cannot be said that any criminal case is pending against the person or he is involved in any criminal case.
25. The stand of the State Government as noticed above was, that the petitioners were admittedly involved in the criminal case, therefore, are not entitled to challenge the impugned orders passed in consonance with the Rule 14 read with the explanation added thereto, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court.
26. Learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended, that this Court held the amended Rule 14 (b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Rules, to be a valid piece of legislation, therefore action taken under Rule 14 (b) does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
27. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It would be seen, that in all these cases, the petitioners were acquitted in criminal cases much before commencement of process of selection. Acquittal in criminal cases means, that the charges framed against the accused itself were bad, therefore, it cannot be said, that persons were involved in any criminal case. Therefore, Rule 14 (b) can only be interpreted to mean, that in cases, which are pending at the time of selection, and end in acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, then a person can be denied the right of appointment by considering him to be involved in criminal cases, but not in a case, where much before the start of selection process, the person is acquitted, even by giving benefit of doubt.
28. As already noticed above, persons in whose case criminal cases was closed as "Mistake of Fact", also by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be involved in criminal case to deny them public appointment, as has been done by the respondents.
29. However, in the cases, where punishment of fine was awarded, the appointment cannot be denied in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra), holding, that it will be totally arbitrary and unfair to deny appointment to a young man, who has been found guilty of very minor offence, for which imposition of fine was considered to be adequate punishment.
30. The fact of the cases shows, that petitioners in W.P.Nos.650 of 2013 (Mr.Tamilazhagan), 3467 of 2013 (Mr.J.Senthil), 3213 of 2013 (Mr.M.Mageswaran), 1740 of 2013 (Mr.D.Chitharanjan), 1278 of 2013 (Mr.Annamalai), 3616 of 2013 (Mr.L.K.Starnesh), and 2837 of 2013 (R.Nithyanandham) were all acquitted of the charges much before the process of selection started.
31. Whereas petitioners in W.P.Nos.2795 of 2013 (Mr.M.Vijaya Baskar), 3691 of 2013 (Mr.Dhanakoteeswaran), 3688 of 2013 (Mr.V.Bharathan) and 4278 of 2013 (Mr.Velu) were acquitted on "Mistake of Fact", whereas in the case of petitioner in 24351 of 2012 (Mr.S.Manikandan), further action itself was dropped.
32. In the case of Mr.Saikumar (W.P.No.24279 of 2012), FIR itself was quashed by this Court, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, these petitioners can be said to be involved in criminal cases to deny them right of appointment. Therefore, the impugned orders passed in all these cases deserve to be quashed, being not arbitrary and not sustainable in law.4
33. Consequently, W.P.Nos.2795 of 2013, 650 of 2013, 3467 of 2013, 3213 of 2013, 1740 of 2013, 1278 of 2013, 3616 of 2013, 2837 of 2013, 3691 of 2013, 24279 of 2012, 24351 of 2012, 3688 of 2013 and 4278 of 2013 are allowed. The impugned orders are ordered to be quashed, and the writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment by ignoring their alleged involvement in the criminal cases and appoint them in case they fall in the merit for selection.
34. As regards the cases of petitioners in W.P.Nos.2836 of 2013 (Mr.A.Manikandan) and 3717 of 2013 (Mr.Sathishkumar) are concerned, they were convicted, and imposed a fine, therefore, it would be necessary to the respondents to consider the facts leading to their involvement, and reconsider their cases for appointment, taking into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra).
35. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ar To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Madras